DEONTOLOGICAL TRADITION

(An Ethical of Duty and Rights)

Deontology:

Deduced from the Greek word for “DUTY” so literally it is the “STUDY OF DUTY”. It is an approach
in ethics that is focused on duties, rules or rights. It emphasizes the notion of acting on principle rather consequences.

The classical Philosophical defense of this view is found in the writings of IMMANUEL KANT.

According to him: Immauel Kant (1724-1804)

Kant defined a person as a rational, autonomous being with the ability to know universal, object moral laws and
the freedom to decide to act morally. It is only through dutiful actions that people can be moral. Kant was convinced that
only reason, and not emotion, sufficient to a person to moral action. Kant believed that people are ends in themselves and
should be treated accordingly. Each autonomous, self-directed person has dignity and is due respect and one should never
act in way that involve using other people as a means to one’s personal end. In fact, when people use others as a means to
an end, even if they believe that they are attempting to reach ethical goals, Kant believe that people could be harmed.
Example of this is the failure to obtain informed consent from a research participant even when the researcher steadfastly
believes that the research will be beneficial to participant.

TWO TYPES OF DUTIES OR OBLIGATIONS

Hypothetical Imperatives
Is Kant‘s term for an imperative that is binding only in relation to the achievement of some particular end or
purpose; the proposition expressing what ought to be done if a particular result is desired. Form the majority of practical
judgement but are inherently moral only insofar as they do not trespass on the absolute limit on action represented by the
categorical imperative.

Categorical Imperatives
Demands that we treat person as ends and never as means or as subjects and never as object. This means that
duties and laws are absolute and unconditional. Hence, we are ethically obliged to treat people as rational and
autonomous being. We can’t use a person for own purpose. We often find ourselves in situations in which we believed it
to be our duty to do a certain action albeit we are convinced that we could promote better consequences by replacing it
with other action.

W. D. ROSS(1877-1971) = Deontology
Ross believed on pluralist form of utilitarianism. He affirms that we accept as one of our duties the obligations
promote the best possible consequences, but negates that all of our duties can be subsumed under this one. In such a case,
it is our duty to act as we believe we ought to do, in spite of the consequences. We must do this act because we can
identify, recognize, by direct intuition, that it is our duty.
 CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Christian ethics is a branch of Christian theology that defines virtuous behavior and wrong behavior from a
Christian perspective. Systematic theological study of Christian ethics is called moral theology.

Christian ethics includes questions regarding how the rich should act toward the poor, how women are to be treated, and
the morality of war. Christian ethicists, like other ethicists, approach ethics from different frameworks and perspectives.

10 Things You Should Know about Christian Ethics: (Wayne Grudem, 2018)

1. Christian ethics teaches us how to live.

Christian ethics asks what the whole Bible teaches us about which acts, attitudes, and personal character traits receive
God’s approval and which ones do not. This means that Christian ethics teaches us how to live. It is important to study
Christian ethics so that we can better know God’s will, and so that each day we can “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord,
fully pleasing to him” (Col. 1:10).

2. The ultimate basis for Christian ethics is the moral character of God.

God delights in his own moral character, which is supremely good, unchanging, and eternal. His moral standards for
human beings flow from his moral character, and therefore they apply to all people in all cultures for all of history.

3. Christian ethics is based on the Bible.

One of the purposes of the Bible is to teach us how to live a life that is pleasing to God (Col. 1:9–10; 1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Tim.
3:17). Because it is the Word of God, the Bible is a higher authority in ethics than tradition, reason, experience, expected
results, or subjective perceptions of guidance. While these other factors can never override the teaching of Scripture, they
can still be helpful for us in making a wise decision.

4. Christian ethics is essential to the proclamation of the gospel.

Some Christian speakers today downplay or omit any call for unbelievers to repent of their sins, but evangelism in the
New Testament clearly included a call to repentance. Just before he returned to heaven, Jesus told his disciples “that
repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke
24:47).

5. Christian ethics teaches us how to live for the glory of God.

The goal of ethics is to lead a life that glorifies God (“do all to the glory of God,” 1 Cor. 10:31). Such a life will have (1) a
character that glorifies God (a Christ-like character), (2) results that glorify God (a life that bears abundant fruit for God’s
kingdom), and (3) behavior that glorifies God (a life of obedience to God, lived in personal relationship with God).
6. Obeying God brings numerous blessings to our daily lives. God intended that obedience to him would not be
burdensome (1 John 5:3) but would bring us great joy. For this reason, when Christians are not “conformed to this world”
we discover that following the will of God is a path of life that is for us “good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2

7. Willful sin brings several harmful consequences to our daily lives.

Christians should pray daily for forgiveness of sins (Matthew 6:12; 1 John 1:9), not to gain justification again and again,
but to restore our personal fellowship with God that has been hindered by sin.

8. Christian ethics teaches us to consider four dimensions of any action, and nine possible sources of information.

Christian ethics is not concerned only with our right and wrong actions. We are complex people, and life itself is complex.
Therefore, in studying Christian ethics, God wants us to consider not only (1) the action itself but also (2) a person’s
attitudes about the action, (3) the person’s motives for doing the action, and (4) the results of the action

When we have more time to ponder a decision, we can consider as many as nine possible sources of information and
guidance: (1) the Bible, (2) knowledge of the facts of the situation, (3) knowledge of ourselves, (4) advice from others, (5)
changed circumstances, (6) our consciences, (7) our hearts, (8) our human spirits, and (9) guidance from the Holy Spirit.
We need wisdom from God in order to evaluate these factors rightly in making a decision

9. We should never think that God wants us to choose a “lesser sin”.

Although several evangelical ethics books claim that, from time to time, we face situations of “impossible moral conflict”
where all our choices are sinful and we must simply choose to commit the “lesser sin,” this idea is not taught in Scripture.
It is contradicted both by the life of Christ, “who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb.
4:15), and by the promise of 1 Corinthians 10:13, which says that God will always provide a “way of escape.”

10. Using the Old Testament for ethical guidance requires an understanding of the history of redemption.

Many Christians have read the Old Testament and wondered how we should understand the detailed laws that
God gave to the people of Israel under the leadership of Moses. This requires an understanding of the “history of
redemption”—the overall progress of the main storyline of the Bible.

•Understanding the progressive development of the Bible from the old covenant (under Moses) to the new covenant
(inaugurated by Christ) is especially important when thinking about the Bible’s teaching regarding civil government
today. It is important to remember that God’s wise laws about crimes and punishments that he gave to the civil
government of Israel as a nation then are in many ways different from God’s wise purposes for the civil governments
of secular nations now.

Christian’s ethics that is the moral principles that govern how you live are based on God’s word as found in
the Bible. Jesus taught that there are two commandments that should be at the center of all ethical decisions.

The Two Great Commands

According to Jesus, the two most important commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor.

 What Does It Mean to Love God?

The word “love” used here is not used to describe a warm, fuzzy feeling. The New Testament in the Bible was
originally written in Greek and the Greek word used here – agape – means being concerned for others, caring for them as
much as you care for yourself. In this context, loving God means putting God first in your life. A Christian who loves God
wants to do what is right in God’s view.

Loving God is also closely linked to loving others: – “If anyone says, “I love God”, yet hates his brother, he is a liar.
For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given
us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4: 21)

So loving God and loving others are linked together. Christians are to love God and others because God loved them first.

 What Does It Mean to Love Your Neighbor?

Again the word used in this passage for loving your neighbor is agape. The passage does not tell Christians to “like”
or to “feel for” their neighbors. It means that Christians should be concerned for their neighbors and care for them as
much as they care for themselves.

In Luke’s Gospel (Luke 10: 25-37), in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, it shows that your neighbor is anyone who
is in need of your help, not just your friends or someone who lives close to you. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:
43-48) Christians are told to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. Christian morality, then, will have
to consider the needs of others.

The seven Christian virtues are from two sets of virtues. The four cardinal virtues are Prudence, Justice, Restraint (or
Temperance), and Courage (or Fortitude). The cardinal virtues are so called because they are regarded as the basic
virtues required for a virtuous life. The three theological virtues, are Faith, Hope, and Love (or Charity).

How do Christians decide what is right and what is wrong?

 Christian’s morality and ethical decisions are based on LOVE that has its source in God.

Areas of applied Christian ethics

 ABORTION – Christians views on abortion has a complex history as there is no explicit prohibition of abortion
in either the Old Testament or New Testament books of Christians. The Roman Catholic Churches teaches that
“human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception”. Protestants views on
abortion have varied considerably, with both the “anti-abortion” and “abortion-rights” camps.
 ALCOHOL – current views on the alcohol in Christianity can be divided into moderationism, abstentionism and
prohibitionism. Prohibitionists abstain from alcohol as a matter of law while abstentionist abstain as a matter of
prudence. They are sometimes lumped as “teetotalers”, sharing similar arguments.
 DIVORCE – the Catholic Church prohibits divorce, but permits annulment (finding that the marriage is never
valid) under a narrow set of circumstances. The Eastern Orthodox Church permits divorce and remarriage in
church in certain circumstances. Most Protestant churches discourage divorce except as a last resort, but do not
actually prohibit it through church doctrine.
 Violence – Christian pacifism is the position that any form of violence is incompatible with the Christian faith.
Jesus opposed use of violence in his statement that “all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword”, which
suggested that those who perpetrate violence will themselves face violence.
 SEXUAL MORALITY AND CELIBACY – modern Christian sexual morality rejects adultery, extramarital
sex, prostitution and rape. Christian views on the moral benefits of celibate and marital lifestyles has varied over
time. In his early writings, Paul described marriage as a social obligation that has the potential of distracting from
Christ. Sex, in turn, is not a sinful but natural and sex within marriage is both proper and necessary. Celibacy was
a matter of choice for bishops, priest and deacons. Today, the Roman Catholic Church teachings on celibacy
uphold it for monastics and priests. Protestantism has rejected the celibate (unmarried) life for preachers since the
reformation. Many evangelicals prefer the “abstinence” to “celibacy”, assuming that everyone will marry.
 HOMOSEXUALITY – within Christianity there are a variety of views on the issues of sexual orientation and
homosexuality. The many Christian denominations vary in their position, from condemning homosexual acts a
sinful, through being divided on the issue, to seeing it as morally acceptable. Further, not all members of a
denomination necessarily support their church’s views on homosexuality.
 Wealth and poverty – there are a variety of Christians views on poverty and wealth, at the other end of spectrum
is a view which casts wealth and materialism as an evil to be avoided and even combatted. At the other end of the
view which casts prosperity and well-being as a blessing from God. Some Christians argue that a proper
understanding of Christians teachings on wealth and poverty needs to take a larger view where the accumulation
of wealth is not the central focus of one’s life but rather a resource to foster the “good life”.

Christian values – historically refers to the values derived from the teachings of Jesus Christ and taught by the
Christians throughout the history of religion.

New Testament teaching

The biblical teachings of Jesus include:

 Love God and neighbors

 Fidelity in marriage
 Renunciation of worldly goods
 Renunciation of vengeance
 Forgiveness of sins
 Unconditional love
KOHLBERG’S MORAL DEVELOPMENT

 Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to explain the moral
development of children. Kohlberg believed that moral development, like cognitive development, follows a series
of stages.
 He used the idea of moral dilemmas—stories that present conflicting ideas about two moral values—to teach 10
to 16 year-old boys about morality and values. The best known moral dilemma created by Kohlberg is the
“Heinz” dilemma, which discusses the idea of obeying the law versus saving a life.
 Kohlberg emphasized that it is the way an individual reasons about a dilemma that determines positive moral
development.
 After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg reviewed people’s responses and placed them in
different stages of moral reasoning.
 According to Kohlberg, an individual progresses from the capacity for pre-conventional morality (before age 9) to
the capacity for conventional morality (early adolescence), and toward attaining post-conventional morality (once
Piaget’s idea of formal operational thought is attained), which only a few fully achieve.
 Each level of morality contains two stages, which provide the basis for moral development in various contexts.

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level
is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.

Kohlberg’s Stages and Levels of Moral Development

Level 1: Pre- conventional

Throughout the preconventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled. Children accept and believe
the rules of authority figures, such as parents and teachers. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or
internalized society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on external consequences
that certain actions may bring.

Stage 1: Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation

Stage 1- focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. For example, an action is
perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished; the worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad”
the act is perceived to be.

Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation

Stage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me?” position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the
individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, only to
the point where it might further the individual’s own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or
intrinsic respect, but rather a “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. An example would be when a child
is asked by his parents to do a chore. The child asks “what’s in it for me?” and the parents offer the child an incentive by
giving him an allowance.

Level 2: Conventional
 Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal relationships. Children
continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now due to their belief that this is necessary to ensure positive
relationships and societal order. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages, and a rule’s
appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

Stage 3: Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation

In stage 3, children want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis is placed on good
behavior and people being “nice” to others.

Stage 4: Law-and-Order Orientation

In stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and convention because of their importance in maintaining a functioning
society. Rules are seen as being the same for everyone, and obeying rules by doing what one is “supposed” to do is seen
as valuable and important. Moral reasoning in stage four is beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage
three.

If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules.
Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

Level 3: Post – conventional

Throughout the post - conventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms of more abstract principles
and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated. This level is marked by a
growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society and that individuals may disobey rules inconsistent
with their own principles.

Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic
human rights as life, liberty, and justice—and view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms, rather than absolute
dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation
of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with that of those
at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract
moral reasoning.

Stage 5: Social-Contract Orientation

  In stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be
mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts.
Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the
greatest number of people.

This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is theoretically
based on stage five reasoning.
 Stage 6: Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation

  In stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Generally, the chosen
principles are abstract rather than concrete and focus on ideas such as equality, dignity, or respect. Laws are valid only
insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice

carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. People choose the

ethical principles they want to follow, and if they violate those principles,

they feel guilty.

In this way, the individual acts because it is morally right to do so (and not because he or she wants to avoid punishment),
it is in their best interest, it is expected, it is legal, or it is previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage
six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.

SUMMARY

 At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying
authority and avoiding punishment.
 At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to
any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to
make deals and exchange favors with others.

 At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and
expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives
toward people close to one. At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.
 At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with
the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic
processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.
 Filipino Ethics

IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT VALUES, MORALS AND ETHICS ARE INSEPARABLY CONNECTED OR
ASSOCIATED WITH.
Values are what we learn from childhood; the ‘stuff’ we grasp from our parents and our environments.
Morals are the fundamental beliefs established from the value systems of how we should act in any certain condition.
Ethics, on the other hand, are how we actually do act in the aspect of complicated situations that check our moral
character.

 What is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior.(BULAONG ET AL,2018)

Filipino values system is defined by the way  of people live their life as an influence of one’s culture. It is the set
of values or the value system that a majority of the Filipinos have historically held important in their lives
consisting their own unique assemblage of consistent ideologies , moral code , ethical principles , etiquette and
cultural and personal values that are promoted by their society.

Characteristics of Filipinos

Every country has its different values and stereotypes, and the Philippines is no exception. We Filipinos firmly
believe that our country has the best values in the world. Although we have been colonized by several countries,
many core values from our ancestors remained intact and are still honored to this day. We Filipinos are not
perfect, but we have great characteristics and qualities that every one of us should be proud of.

Below some of the most well-known positive and negative traits of Filipinos.
Positive Traits
1. Hospitality

 This is one of the most popular qualities of Filipinos. Foreigners who have gone to the Philippines find
themselves falling in love with the warm hospitality they are shown. It's a different kind of value system,
which has existed for thousands of years.
Here are some examples of the hospitality that Filipinos show, not only to foreigners, but also to their fellow citizens:

 When a person visits a friend's house, the host greets him or her with a very warm welcome. The host will
immediately let their visitor sit down and will prepare a meal or a snack plus drinks for the visitor. The host
will insist that the friend not leave the house with an empty stomach. A host will always make sure you had
a great time visiting them.
 People offer their guest room to visitors if they're going to spend the night.
 Meals offered to guests are very special. A host always finds a way to prepare great tasting food that her
visitor wants to eat.
2. Respect

 This is often observed—not just by younger people—but also by people of all ages.
 Children respect elders by saying "po" and "opo," which mean "yes," when answering their elders.
 Children or young adults also show respect by putting their elders' hands on their foreheads.
 Filipinos also show respect at work by making a bow to their employers.
3. Strong Family Ties and Religions

 Yes. Filipinos value their families so much that they tend to keep families intact through the generations.
 Families go to church and pray together because their religion is important and creates a strong bond,
marking god as the center of their lives.
 Families make sure to have quality time together especially after a day's work. Just watching television or
eating a family meal will be valued and prioritized in everybody's schedules.
4. Generosity and Helpfulness

 Filipinos are generous people. Even when we have very little, we always share with those around us.
 During special occasions such as birthdays or "fiestas" —parties when people from other places visit
your home to celebrate with you—there are lots of foods specially prepared for everyone! Friends,
family, friends of friends, and even strangers can gather and they are always willing to share food and
help out.
 When a neighbor is in trouble, Filipinos are always ready to help them.

5. Strong Work Ethic

 Yes, we are hardworking people to the point that we are willing to work almost the whole day just to feed
our families. That's how Filipinos are.
 One example of a hardworking person is a farmer. They earn so little but they still work very hard for not
much compensation.
 Filipinos always find creative ways to earn a living, like creating a small business from their home where
they sell foods or other items for the convenience of their neighbors.

6. Love and Caring

 This is so true! Filipinos are the sweetest and most loving people in the world. I'm not just saying this
because I'm a Filipino; if you know us well, you will figure it out.
 Men are so sweet and romantic when it comes to love. They will send their beloved flowers, bring her to
a very romantic place, text her sweet quotes, and tell often how special she is to them.
 Filipino women are also romantic and very caring, which often makes foreigners want to marry them.
Women tend to prepare dinner before their husband comes home. They are loving, and value the
relationship, always staying faithful to their husbands. They love deeply and sincerely.
 OTHE
R

ACCOMMODATIVE SURFACE VALUES

Negative Traits of Filipinos

1. Fatalism
 This actually describes the Filipino way of life, in which, he is determined to do his best, hence, the term “bahala
na”, which actually came from the phrase “Bathala Na” which means “I will do all my best, let God take care of
the rest”.
 An attitude of "what goes around, comes around" or "come what may." We have a tendency to surrender our
future to fate. We often accept bad news or circumstances without trying to stop or change them. This can
 sometimes be helpful in adversity, but it can also keep us from finding ways out of situations. Also, constantly
expecting the worst can get pretty depressing.
2. Crab mentality
 This is prevalent in politics where people tend to push each other down to clear the way for their own gain.
Politicians, especially, try their best to ruin each other, but this can also happen among regular people. I think it
goes to the point of selfishness.

3. Mañana Habit

 It is ironic that the Spanish would accuse Filipinos of being lazy when they themselves taught us the mañana
habit in the first place. Known as “tomorrow” in English, the habit encourages procrastination, an “ability” we
Filipinos have since turned into an art form. Even the most urgent of projects and tasks can be relegated for some
other time; we are only forced to work on them when the deadline is near. It’s a miracle we get things done in this
country.

4. Filipino Time

 Related to the mañana habit, Filipino time refers to the Filipinos’ own unique brand of time, which is known to
be minutes or hours behind the standard time.  In other words, we tend not to observe punctuality at all. This
behavior usually drives time-observant foreigners crazy. While we Filipinos with our easy-going ways have
somewhat become used to Filipino time, it still is a bad habit that needs to be dropped.

5. Being Onion-Skinned (Balat-Sibuyas)

 We Filipinos are famous for being onion-skinned or easily slighted at perceived insults. While it’s perfectly
normal for us to taunt and criticize others, we can’t handle the same when it’s being hurled back at us. Incidents
showcasing our extra-sensitivity to insults usually involve a foreigner making either a bonafide racist remark or a
humorous jab at us Filipinos. True to form, our reactions would range from righteous indignation to excessive
grandstanding. While it is alright to feel incensed, throwing a fit in front of the world would inevitably do us no
good at all.

6. Balikbayan Box Mentality

 While there is nothing wrong with giving gifts to one’s family and friends (we Filipinos do highly value them
after all), it becomes a different matter when said family and friends either misconstrue or abuse the OFW’s
generosity.
 In local parlance, this has become known as the “Balikbayan box mentality.” People ingrained with this mentality
either become exploitative or jealous of the success of the OFW, not knowing that he/she is working hard away
from his loved ones in a foreign country. Some also believe that the practice undoubtedly contributes to the
Filipinos’ colonial mentality.
7. Corruption
 One of the biggest social ills our country has continued to face since time immemorial is the issue of corruption. 
Let’s face it, our “culture of corruption” is embedded deep within our system and reinforced by a complex web
of economic and social factors which include personal ambitions and a twisted sense of loyalty to friends and kin.
The Philippines is in for a long haul if our officials and we ourselves do not get rid of this very negative habit.
8. Excessive Partying
 Now there’s nothing wrong with enjoying a fiesta and party every now and then, it’s just that we Filipinos tend
to overdo it.  Birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, and even somber funerals are celebrated by Filipinos like
there is no tomorrow. Sometimes we even make up the slightest of reasons just so we could have an excuse to
party. What’s more, a host would sometimes even strain his own finances just to impress his guests.
 As for fiestas, it seems that every LGU down to the smallest barangay in the country has a fiesta to celebrate. Like
we said, it’s alright to party, but we should really focus on austerity and working hard.

Summary:
Pilipino Ethics has positive and negative traits which shows or defined us as a Filipino. It tells how the way we
live, how we influence by one’s culture, how unique and creative we are, how we love, we care, we act in a good
manners and how we value our relationship with others.
 NATURAL LAW AND TELEOLOGICAL TRADITION

The term teleological alludes to a way of doing morality which emphasizes the end (telos) or purpose of human existence.
The ethical views can be traced to Aristotle (4th century B.C) and Thomas Aquinas (13th century A.D). Aristotle placed
the biological sciences at the forefront of knowledge. He explained why something exists. He agreed with Plato about the
universe as an ideal world, differing with him on the relation of form in matter. These were inseparable. He proposed that
the union of matter and form become the principle by which growth could be explained in terms of motion. Motion and
change are the realization of form in matter. He describes the four causes:

1. MATERIAL CAUSE - what an object is made from, its matter

2. FORMAL CAUSE - how matter is organized or structured

3. EFFECIENT CAUSE - how something came to be what is

4. FINAL CAUSE - the purpose or characteristic activity of the object.

 Aristotle believed that all things did have natural and distinctive activity. This activity is the purpose, function or
end. The Greeks understood this activity as the object telo’s. So, Aristotle’s, science is called teleological.
 Aristotle differentiated the types of natural objects: those that are alive and those that are not. The principle of life,
known as the “psyche” which was later translated as the soul, is the characteristic activity of living things. The
body is alive if it has a soul.

Three Fundamental Activities of Life (Aristotle):

1. Nutrition
2. Sensation
3. Thinking
 Some living things possess only one (the nutritive soul). Others possess two (nutritive, appetitive or sensitive) and
others possess all three types.
• Plants possess only nutritive soul. Their characteristic activities are only the powers of nutrition, growth and
reproduction.
• Animals possess appetitive powers and nutrition. Their natural activities are powers of sensation, desire and
motion.
• Humans possess the three life activities of nutrition, appetite and thought.
 • This teleological framework was further developed by Thomas Aquinas on the 13 th century. Aquinas synthesized
Aristotle’s science by interpreting it as an evidence of a divine plan operating in nature. Nature itself has a
purpose and harmonious functioning of nature reveals the goodness of God’s plan. Nature obliges all to perfect of
their nature by means of actions that promote self-development and fulfillment. All find their happiness and
fulfillment by acting in accord with not just nature also reason, grace and virtues.
• The foundation of natural law is the eternally established order of God. It is in the context of the exitus et reditus
principle: All things come from God and return to God.
• The proximate norm of morality is authentic human existence. The natural law is the human way of knowing the
ultimate norm of morality – eternal law, or what God requires and enables. It knows this by reflecting critically on
the proximate norm of morality – what it means to live a fully human life in community with others striving for
human wholeness. The eternal law enables us to develop our unique qualities. It is known for reason and our
natural inclinations and its moral requirement stems not only from reason and the human will, but also from the
reality of human nature itself. Our abiding and stable nature is rational, free spiritual and intelligent. Actions are
good or bad to the extent they promote these natural qualities.
• The natural law is a special kind of knowledge, not about bad, but about human beings and human nature.
Through human reason reflecting on human nature, human beings can determine what is for their own good and at
the same time what God requires. Aquinas then moves on the specific norms of natural law based on the natural
inclinations:
a.) The first inclination to the good is common to all created reality. It’s the tendency to persevere in this being.
Preserving and protecting life as a basic value belongs to the natural law on the basis of this inclination.

b.) The second inclination to the good is generic to animals. Insofar as humans are animals, what nature has taught all
animals belongs to the natural law. Included here is the tendency toward the procreation and education of offspring.

c.) The third inclination to the good is specific to humans. Whatever pertains to reason belongs to the natural law.

Teleologists, however, differ from each other when they deal with moral concept for good. For example: Thomas Aquinas
held that the ultimate end of the human person is the first ethical consideration. The fundamental drives or tendencies of
the person are oriented toward fulfillment of human potential, the morally good is whatever leads to that ultimate
fulfillment-union with God. Law serves as the final end of being human

 Joseph Fletcher advocated a strict teleological approach. For Fletcher, in making a moral decision, determine
first possible alternatives for action, and the consequences which each produces.
Three distinctions on their concept of what is good:

a. Instrumental Good/Value – is a function of usefulness. It can be used to attain something else of value.
Example: pencil, money, forests and wilderness areas, clean air and water, plant and animal species. Thus, any utilitarian
or economic proposal is grounded on the instrumental value of nature.

b. Intrinsic Good/Value – when it is valued for itself and not simple valued for its uses. It is valuable because of
its symbolic, aesthetic or cultural significance. We value them for themselves, for what they mean, for what they stand
for, for what they are. Example: friendship, family, parks, wilderness areas, scenic landscapes, natural parks and so on.
 c. Inherent Worth – an object has inherent worth if it is good in itself, independently of any human valuing.
Example: human dignity, respect, religious traditions, human. Humans have a worth that transcend human valuing,
humans possess dignity in and of themselves.

Teleologist distinguished Intrinsic Good, viz, the monist and the pluralist

Monism

Monism was introduced by Christian Wolff to refer to systems of thought emphasizing unity rather than diversity
of the world and of experience. Thus, there is only one thing is intrinsically good. Monist advocates such as Ernst
Heinrich Haeckel believed in the unity of all thing in the evolution of a single universal substance.

Alfred North Whitehead believed that there is one ultimate reality actualizing itself in all the entities. This belief
is later tagged as panentheism. Another example is Aristotle and the Hedonists. For Aristotle, the good is self-sufficient.
This final self-sufficient end is happiness. Happiness is attained if a man lives a well-ordered and virtuous life.

Pluralism

Pluralism there is more than one ultimate subject of predication or more than one kind of such ultimate subject.
Example: Non-hedonists such as Plato who held that the good life is a mixed life. It is an equilibrium containing several
elements. Other pluralists believed that there are four things that are intrinsically good: virtuous disposition, knowledge,
pleasure and the just proportion of pleasure to the virtous.
 Marxism
Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx, which examines the effect
of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism
in favor of communism. Marxism posits that the struggle between social classes, specifically between the bourgeoisie, or
capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers, defines economic relations in a capitalist economy and will inevitably lead to
revolutionary communism.
Marx
• Marxism provided the philosophical point of view for at least one third of the world’s population in the second
half of the 20th century.
• Marx spent a considerable portion of his adult life in relative obscurity, it is all the more remarkable that his views
should have achieved such immense influence for several generations.
• He rarely mingled with the masses whose status occupied his theoretical concern.
• Although, he wrote an enormous amount, his writings were not read extensively during his lifetime.

Marx showed that class struggle is bound up with “particular historic phases” and he distinguished the FIVE EPOCHS:
 Primitive communal- in this epoch everything was free, there was unity among men. The also existed
harmonious living as well as interdependency among men.
 Slave- the relationship was between the “Lords” (aristocrats) and the “Serfs” (slaves). The slaves have to
show devotion and hard service for a reward from the owner.
 Feudal- as the historical perspective in Marxism: the process by which human creation and
interdependency through the various parts of the society thus: economic, political, legal, education, family
and religion are interconnected and influence each other in motion.
 Capitalist and as a prediction of things to come- according to Marx is the total distinction and
destruction of the society. It begins right from childhood; how parents brings up their children to live on
their own as well as how they should deal with life so as they could become somebody in future – this
brought the individualistic nature of capitalism. 
 Socialist and communist- classless society owns means of production.

• When analyzing structure of each historical epoch, he viewed these as the result of conflict between
social classes. And conflict itself have to be analyzed in more detail, he looked on history as the product
of conflict and relied heavily upon the Hegelian concept of dialect to explain it. Even he rejected Hegel’s
idealism, but he still accepted the general theory of the dialect movement of history.
• He considered the commodity value products of economics as being “of the same order as those [minute
elements] within microscopic anatomy.”
• According to Marx, we are to see history as a movement caused by conflicts in the material order, and for
this reason history is a dialectical materialism
Change: quantitative and qualitative
• History shows that social and economic orders are in an ongoing process of change. Marx dialectical materialism
maintains further that material is primary, since matter is the basis of that is truly real.
• He rejected the notion that somewhere there are stable, permanent structure of reality or certain “eternal verities.”
Instead, everything is involved in the dialect process of change.
• History is the process of change from one epoch to another in accordance with the rigorous and inexorable laws of
historical motion. Form him, change is not the same thing as mere growth. A society does not simply mature the
way a child becomes an adult. It passes through a real history.
• Change means the emergence of new structures and novel forms. What causes change is simply alteration in the
quantity of things, which leads to something qualitatively new. Marx thought that history displays this kind of
change by which certain quantitative elements in the economic order finally force a qualitative change in the
arrangements of society.
• This is the process that moved history from the primitive communal to the slave and in turn to the feudal and
capitalist epochs.
• Marx’s prediction that the capitalist order would fall was based on this notion that the changes in the quantitative
factors in capitalism would inevitably destroy capitalism.
• He describes the development of these epochs with the lowkey style of someone describing how water will turn
into steam as heat is increase.
• He writes The Capital that “while there is progressive diminution in the number of capitalist owners, there is a
corresponding increase in the mass of poverty, enslavement, degeneration and exploitation, but at the same time a
steady intensification of the role of the working class.” Then, “the centralization of the means of production and
the socialization of the labor reach a point where they prove incompatible with their capitalist busk. This bursts
asunder. The knell of private property sounds. The expropriations are expropriated.” on the social level, is what
Marx describes as the quantitative leap, which is “the leap to a new aggregate state… where consequently
quantity is transformed into quality.

Determinism OR inexorable law

“ Marxism holds that there is a fundamental” contradiction within the very essence of things” causing the dialectic
movement. Although there are ways to delay or accelerate this inner movement in the nature of things, there is no way to
prevent its ultimate unfolding. All things are related to each other causally;

End of history
For Hegel the dialectic process would come to an end when the idea of random was perfectly realized. By definition this
would mean the end of all conflict and struggle: Marx, though, believed that the dialectic struggle of opportunities in the
material order, particularly in the struggle between the classes.
A classes society would emerge where all the forces and interest would be in perfect balance, and the equilibrium would
be perpetual.
Accordingly he made a distinction between the substructure and superstructure of society. The substructure is the
material order, containing the energizing force that moves history, whereas the superstructure consists in people’s ideas
and simply reflects the configurations of the material order.

2 types of Material order

Factors of Production
The basic fact of human life is that in order to live people must secure food, clothing, and shelter. To have these material
things, people must produce them. Wherever we find any society of people, there is always at hand the factors of
production the raw materials, instruments, and the experienced labor skill by which to sustain life. But these factors of
forces of production represent chiefly the way people are related to these material things. Or greater importance is the way
we related to each other in the process of production. Marx emphasized that production always takes place as a social act,
whereby people struggle against and utilize nature not as individuals but as groups and societies.
Relation of Production
It refers to the relationship between those do not (the workers or the proletariat). According to Marx, history evolves
through the interaction between the mode of production and the relations of production. The modes of production
constantly evolves towards a realization of its fullest productive capacity, but this evolution creates antagonism between
the classes of people defined by the relations of production owners and workers.